(1.) The first respondent was working as a driver on a tempo bearing No. AP 10U 4298 owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant. On 05.09.2002, an accident occurred when he was proceeding from Hyderabad to Pune and the same resulted in injury to his left hand. He was initially treated at Government Hospital Danud, Maharastra and subsequently, in the Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. Cr.No.982 of 2002 was registered by the concerned police station.
(2.) First respondent filed W.C. Case No.152 of 2003 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-I (for short 'the Commissioner') claiming Rs.4,39,221.90 as compensation. He pleaded that the second respondent was paying him salary of Rs.3,175/-per month and batta of Rs.50/-per day and that his age was 25 years at that time. It was urged that he became totally disabled from discharging the functions of the driver and that he suffered 100% disability.
(3.) The second respondent filed counter admitting the fact that the first respondent is employed with it as a driver and that the accident has occurred. However, it denied the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. The appellant filed a separate counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It has put the first respondent to strict proof of the facts pleaded by him. The ownership of the vehicle with the second respondent is also disputed.